Hi Joe, Thanks for the post. A comment or two below: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Mark > > When the indefinable becomes definable you embrace the logic of physics. > DQ/SQ is a metaphysical statement. Metaphysics stands outside of the logic > of physics as a more far reaching discipline for describing evolution.
Mark: As I see it, we create the definable. As such, we express the relationships of existence with physics. This does not replace these relationships, but puts them in a context which we can share as humans. There is much logic in metaphysics which is no different from physics. This stands to reason since both are created by the human brain which tends to express itself in certain ways. Physics is something we make up, just like metaphysics. The difference is that physics operates through the use of measurements, while metaphysics operates through rhetoric. You will agree that measurements don't really exist outside of our heads. I have never seen a mile, or a pound. All we have are representations of each. In the same way, I have never seen DQ or SQ, since we have created these things so that we can share them. > > The Mathematics of physical discipline is logically prevented from > describing DQ as 0 as that which comes before 1. Division by 0 returns an > illogical number. Well, to start with division by zero is like trying to figure out how many angels dance on the head of a pin. By way of example: How many times do "no people" (zero) fit into an elevator? The question is illogical. Zero (or the absence of something) cannot be factored into making up something. I could ask you how many barks fit into a dog and be asking something as nonsensical as how many times does zero fit into the number 10. However, you point out a difference, in common perception, between physics and metaphysics when you state that DQ cannot be assigned a value. However, if you think about it, what is zero? Basically it is the absence of "Some Thing". We could say that DQ is also the absence of "Some Thing". So I wouldn't necessarily say that they are not an expression for the same "thing". > Cheers, Mark > > On 8/21/12 10:15 PM, "118" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It is possible to share the undefinable if two people have experienced the >> same thing. Then words can bring meaning, and the undefinable becomes >> definable. > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
